And do it in a way that can be tested by third-parties, including the ISP's own engineers and the media.

It feels more like the US State Department is trying to push protectionist trade policies than anything else. And you can look at my posting history to realize how often I give the US government the benefit of the doubt.

And do it in a way that can be tested by third-parties, including the ISP's own engineers and the media.

It feels more like the US State Department is trying to push protectionist trade policies than anything else. And you can look at my posting history to realize how often I give the US government the benefit of the doubt.

At this point I'm inclined to agree. The US has offered exactly zero evidence. With the way this administration has been acting towards everything else, "trust us" is not evidence.

I'm also sure more than a few researcher have their hands on Huawei gear and haven't found anything of note

And as Huawei said, any standard firewall/security system would have detected any significant data exfiltration by now.

One entirely possible scenario is that the US doesn't like Huawei equipment because it doesn't come with backdoors.

I'm cheerfully willing to entertain evidence that their stuff is evil, and since we have actual evidence (from private parties) that their phones have been calling home with sensitive info, I entirely agree with the ban on their cell equipment.

But until equivalent proof is demonstrated of the supposed backdoors in the telecom equipment, my inclination is to think that it's politics. The US government has demonstrated, repeatedly and over many administrations, both Democratic and Republican, that it is not trustworthy.

Huawei seems confused. Of course the US and China and every other country on earth spy on each other. In fact, the CIA just copped to owning that Swiss company that made encryption devices for both allies and enemies.

But that isn’t the point. When the CIA got ‘caught’ building encryption devices they didn’t go all passive-aggressive and demand that countries continue to buy their compromised tech. That would be silly.

If it is proven that Huawei did the same thing, then all these excuses and finger pointing mean nothing. People and countries will simply stop buying your tech.

People spy and sometimes they get caught and if you’re selling a product like the CIA was, you expect to lose sales. If Huawei is selling compromised tech they should expect the same.

The way I interpret all this is to believe every negative thing the US says about Huawei/China, and believe every negative thing Huawei/China says about the US.

I believe everybody is spying on everybody, all the time.

The takeaway is really that third party countries should avoid both Chinese and US telecom equipment whenever possible. Yes, Ericsson might also have backdoors, but at least it would be under control of my own or another EU country, where I do have some level of accountability and legal recourse.

And do it in a way that can be tested by third-parties, including the ISP's own engineers and the media.

It feels more like the US State Department is trying to push protectionist trade policies than anything else. And you can look at my posting history to realize how often I give the US government the benefit of the doubt.

If anyone other than Trump wins and wants to fix our relationship with other countries—especially China, then he/she has got a lot of work cut out.

Regardless of spying accusations, from a geopolitical point of view, one shouldn't have technology from a competing power as part of your core infrastructure. Would the Pentagon buy Chinese made planes, carriers?

I mean, they're not wrong. Just look at literally any US company except *maybe* Apple. Y'think they have the power to refuse the US government?

There is a non-zero chance, however small, of a US/Western company fighting such an order in court, depending on the authority used to issue the order. Yes, national security is used too often as a boogeyman and we should restrain its use more.

In China, there's zero chance. Companies there exist as extensions of the CCP.

Both are most likely spying, difference is the US is a government, not a company, we expect most powerful countries are spying. Huawei is supposed to have no government interest in mind however, given it's a company and it's supposed to have the interest of shareholders in mind, not the government (provided they're not the same).

Both are most likely spying, difference is the US is a government, not a company, we expect most powerful countries are spying. Huawei is supposed to have no government interest in mind however, given it's a company and it's supposed to have the interest of shareholders in mind, not the government (provided they're not the same).

Huawei shareholders and ownership is actually a fairly murky topic with no real public answers.

At that scale it's also pretty much inevitable for a telecom company to be deeply connected to their government (and yes, this is true for US etc companies too of course).

Huawei has a point. Cisco accuses it of IP theft, but when challenged for proof, had none. Huawei opened it’s source code and challenged Cisco to do the same, they refused, case dropped, end of story.

Then the US Senate had hearings, same result, no evidence and no legislative action, just a letter to carriers suggesting they not buy Huawei equipment because it “might” be a security risk.

Then during the first meeting of Obama and Xi, Obama reputedly took the complaint to Xi just as Snowden disclosed evidence of NSA spying on Huawei including hacking the company network.

And then, the story of the NSA intercepting Cisco and Huawei equipment during tras-shipment broke outraging Cisco’s CEO and making the USA look pretty foolish.

Meanwhile, Huawei abandoned efforts to sell in the USA market and reduced its US staff to just tech support for existing customers while it’s sales in Europe, Africa and Asia (minus Five Eyes countries) grew.

In some countries like the UK, Huawei ships hardware in for test and inspection before installation by local crews and has never been accused of shipping in spyware.

Enter Trump and his trade war. I guess we all know the rest.

This is pathetic. The USA basically abandoned the General telecom market more than a decade ago as not sufficiently profitable and only the vestiges of networking hardware suppliers remain.

The world is mainly serviced by Huawei, Nokia Networks, Ericsson and ZTE.

Now Trump has this delusional battle to control 5G which is ridiculous since the IP and technology is diversified and international. All that is being accomplished is that US technology and component suppliers are getting cut out of business.

And what is truly sad is the business loss is likely to be permanent as Huawei, based in the largest telecom market, develops its own components and further accelerates it IP portfolio.

I hope for the good of US tech companies this madness stops. Huawei does not need US business to survive and the world is getting really tired of the nonsense Trump is creating.

He screwed up farming, now tech, what next?

Granted he did not start the Huawei Derangement Syndrome, but it sure became a perfect storm in his hands.

...But until equivalent proof is demonstrated of the supposed backdoors in the telecom equipment, my inclination is to think that it's politics. ...

My take as well. If I must replace my dozen or so Hwawei routers/switches, I need to see some solid evidence on how they do it. "Hwawei has the capability...", coming from an unnamed source doesn't cut as evidence.

Everything pointing to USA not liking Huawei because they have no control whatsoever. That is, they have no backdoor for their equipment, so they are essentially blind, when we all know how USA likes to spy on everyone.

Truth is however, Huawei will survive without USA and this situation will make it stronger in the long term.

According to the Journal article, telecom-equipment makers who sell products to carriers "are required by law to build into their hardware ways for authorities to access the networks for lawful purposes," but "are also required to build equipment in such a way that the manufacturer can't get access without the consent of the network operator."

Absolute rubbish, it only requires a routine onsite check by the manufacturer according its service agreement to have complete control over the control system and to activate "lawful intercept"

Both are most likely spying, difference is the US is a government, not a company, we expect most powerful countries are spying. Huawei is supposed to have no government interest in mind however, given it's a company and it's supposed to have the interest of shareholders in mind, not the government (provided they're not the same).

The way I interpret all this is to believe every negative thing the US says about Huawei/China, and believe every negative thing Huawei/China says about the US.

I believe everybody is spying on everybody, all the time.

The takeaway is really that third party countries should avoid both Chinese and US telecom equipment whenever possible. Yes, Ericsson might also have backdoors, but at least it would be under control of my own or another EU country, where I do have some level of accountability and legal recourse.

You know that the BND helped start the Crypto AG partnership and everyone in West and post-collapse unified german circles besides a few politicians were completely unhappy with the end of that arrangement right?

The 9-eyes also includes several EU intelligence agencies that all universally benefit from NSA infrastructure and tools?

I would stop trying to paint the EU as some meritorious place for internet privacy....

However, the frank reality is that anyone who would accept the risk of PRC spying over western spying is deluded at best, or has active hostile intent to dilute the narrative(i.e., prc shills).

Wish I could say more but there's valid national security reasons why the u.s. isn't publishing evidence. Exposing information that may expose sources or methods, and the potential origins of each of the same puts collection capabilities at risk. Also just like many nations there are likely plenty of comment accounts that are used for misinformation campaigns on websites in response to news articles (which ironically one can't prove about oneself). Either way, I'll await all the upcoming downvotes

Both are most likely spying, difference is the US is a government, not a company, we expect most powerful countries are spying. Huawei is supposed to have no government interest in mind however, given it's a company and it's supposed to have the interest of shareholders in mind, not the government (provided they're not the same).

The way I interpret all this is to believe every negative thing the US says about Huawei/China, and believe every negative thing Huawei/China says about the US.

I believe everybody is spying on everybody, all the time.

Solid take, and I generally agree.

That said, Huawei does have a point in that it feels impossible to accomplish what US officials are alleging here without detection even with a wide-open back door. How could they access these devices and/or exfiltrate data from them from deep within a carrier's network infrastructure - that data wold need to traverse both coming and going - without leaving all sorts of footprints?

Both are most likely spying, difference is the US is a government, not a company, we expect most powerful countries are spying. Huawei is supposed to have no government interest in mind however, given it's a company and it's supposed to have the interest of shareholders in mind, not the government (provided they're not the same).

Huawei is a private company so it has absolutely no transparency

If by private you mean 51% owned by the peoples republic of China?

Except the company isn't government-owned at all. It is nominally employee-owned, but in practical reality controlled by it's founder and a handful of top executives.

The company has occasionally gotten grants and other support from the Chinese government ... much like AT&T et. al. receive the same from the US government. But that doesn't make them government-owned any more than AT&T is government owned.

You really registered just to pull that easily disproved falsehood out of your butt?